PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else miss when the games focused more on the Assassin and The Brotherhood?



Corleone-Kun
07-05-2015, 04:55 AM
Is is just me or the newer AC tittles are more about the Location and less about the Protagonist Assassin and the Brotherhood,and of course the fight against the templars? I think that is also why the modern day history is getting put aside. So,what do you guys think about this? Do you like it this way ( I don't).

EmptyCrustacean
07-05-2015, 01:11 PM
I agree completely. That's ultimately what has turned AC into an innovationless, generic video game no different from any other triple A title.

ninja4hire10
07-05-2015, 01:22 PM
MD's the only part of the AC lore I dislike, so I like the fact the series seems as if it's steering the focus away from it. TBH, I wish they'd never have introduced the MD component into the games at all.

It's all about my personal experience with the story and I only involve myself with the MD stuff when the game forces me to. Otherwise, I just happily stick to the historical playground.

EDIT: Sorry, don't know where my brain went when I posted this; my reply seems off-topic. What I MEANT to say was the ONGOING struggle between the Brotherhood v. Order in MD is what I don't care for. Brotherhood focused more on the internal workings of the organization -- fine, considering the title. But like some others posted, the series isn't supposed to be about the 'Hood as a whole; it's about how the MC's role in the 'Hood during the set time period.

JamesFaith007
07-05-2015, 01:48 PM
I am more interested in historical events and locations then MD since the AC2 so I have no problem with it.

VestigialLlama4
07-05-2015, 02:01 PM
Personally, the games were always about the Location and the Assassin. It was never really too much about the Brotherhood as an organization.

Like AC1 - The brotherhood is essentially Altair, Malik and Al Mualim and maybe Acre Rafiq. Its a very personal individual story.

AC2 - Its about Ezio and Renaissance Italy, most of the people he meets don't reveal they are Assassins till the very end.

BROTHERHOOD is the only game that focused on how the Assassins work as an actual organization. REVELATIONS is Ezio being a Professor in Residence at the Assassin University, Istanbul.

AC3 - Its about America, History, Connor, Haytham and the Homestead.

Black Flag - Pirates.

UNITY - Is about Arno getting into Elise's pants. So no real focus on anything else.

I like that Assassins' Creed games can tackle a bunch of subjects rather than focus on one specific aspect over others.

Shahkulu101
07-05-2015, 04:44 PM
There's one game where the Brotherhood is the main focus, it's importance has not suddenly deteriorated as the series has went on - you're just being nostalgic.

AC1: Introduced us to the Brotherhood yes, but mainly a personal story of redemption as he regains his former status.

AC2: Personal revenge story in which Ezio isn't even aware he's an Assassin until the second last sequence, which is also when the Brotherhood were revealed to them.

ACB: Brotherhood is the main focus, obviously.

ACR: Has the Brotherhood mechanic but it's importance is lessened since the story isn't really about liberating Constantinople.

I'll stop at the Ezio games, since that's probably the point you thought the games stopped being about the Brotherhood. Well I'm afraid that's false and you're viewing the Ezio games (and AC1) with rose tinted glasses, because only one game has ever focused on the Brotherhood as the MAIN point and it's been a background theme for basically every game except maybe AC3.

EmptyCrustacean
07-05-2015, 06:00 PM
There's one game where the Brotherhood is the main focus, it's importance has not suddenly deteriorated as the series has went on - you're just being nostalgic.

AC1: Introduced us to the Brotherhood yes, but mainly a personal story of redemption as he regains his former status.

AC2: Personal revenge story in which Ezio isn't even aware he's an Assassin until the second last sequence, which is also when the Brotherhood were revealed to them.

ACB: Brotherhood is the main focus, obviously.

ACR: Has the Brotherhood mechanic but it's importance is lessened since the story isn't really about liberating Constantinople.

I'll stop at the Ezio games, since that's probably the point you thought the games stopped being about the Brotherhood. Well I'm afraid that's false and you're viewing the Ezio games (and AC1) with rose tinted glasses, because only one game has ever focused on the Brotherhood as the MAIN point and it's been a background theme for basically every game except maybe AC3.

Oh really re: AC1? The brotherhood was just background? LOL! Some people will say anything to defend the latter games.

So all that ham fisted dialogue about what it means to be a true Assassin, whether the Assassins and Templars are that different after all, the student turning on his master, the long speeches, Altair's brothers scolding him whenever he did something that compromised their creed ("yes, yes I know. In fact, the whole city knows!") etc is not brotherhood centric? In AC1, they used an individual's story to cleverly demonstrate the values and beliefs of the Assassins and how they differ in comparison to their foes. That's what every Assassin's Creed game should be. Altair's story of trying to regain his honour forced him to reconsider whether he understood what he was trying to achieve and re-learn everything he thought he all ready knew.

Before his demotion he was arrogant, thought himself above the brotherhood and lost sight of the creed's meaning. Making him novice made him rediscover his own creed - even though it seemed at first he was just trying to climb the ranks. By the end, he proves he had learned when he apologises for his wreckless behaviour at the end. To cut a long story short his entire motivation , his end game is focused on being part of the brotherhood again. It's not a revenge plot, it's not a love story, it's not about pirates or Native Americans. It's about a man trying to get back into the only world he's ever known and figuring out if he really understands and wants this. Of all the narratives Altair's is the one that DIRECTLY informs and reinforces the philosophical ideas of the brotherhood. By the nature of the story; it has to. Oh, and let's not forget the epic battle at the end with all the Assassins trying to stop Al Muliam in Maysaf...

The brotherhood in those first few games is a constant presence. You feel them even when they're not there. In the case of AC2 that was pretty literal since they had been manipulating the events in Ezio's life to set him on the right path. To think that for a game to be classed as an Assassin's game that it needs to be called 'Brotherhood' and have Assassins help you out from time to time is simplistic to say the least. Brotherhood was the first time that the brotherhood was incorporated into the GAMEPLAY by the protagonist but as for the story it's no more Assassin-centric than the other earlier games.

It starts to go to hell once we get to AC3. It didn't work because Connor was never really an Assassin. He was a lone wolf manipulated into it in order to save his tribe which he failed at anyway.

Xstantin
07-05-2015, 08:02 PM
That's ultimately what has turned AC into an innovationless, generic video game no different from any other triple A title.

I don't think I follow here tbh. Seems it's been in the background since forever. Lack of brotherhood is not really the problem imo.

Kaschra
07-05-2015, 08:30 PM
It starts to go to hell once we get to AC3. It didn't work because Connor was never really an Assassin. He was a lone wolf manipulated into it in order to save his tribe which he failed at anyway.

Yes. Yes, he was.
Connor might not have started out with the desire to be an Assassin (just like EZIO), but over time he truly started to believe and fight for their cause.

SixKeys
07-05-2015, 08:34 PM
TBH AC3 had more to do with the brotherhood than AC2. Connor's quest was about reviving the brotherhood and killing Templars. He recruited people into the assassins along the way. Ezio didn't even know the people he was killing were Templars up until a certain point and he didn't care about the brotherhood at all. It was all about a personal vengeance story. He didn't know the people who helped him along the way were assassins until the end.

I'd say the games where the brotherhood was most in focus are AC1, ACB and ACR. AC2 and AC4 had the least focus on the brotherhood. Ironically, they're two of the most popular entries in the franchise. Is it any surprise so many games have strayed away from the original focus?

VestigialLlama4
07-05-2015, 08:35 PM
So all that ham fisted dialogue about what it means to be a true Assassin, whether the Assassins and Templars are that different after all, the student turning on his master, the long speeches, Altair's brothers scolding him whenever he did something that compromised their creed ("yes, yes I know. In fact, the whole city knows!") etc is not brotherhood centric?

That's more organizational stuff than Brotherhood. By Brotherhood, he means more the cult experience, the Assassin rituals and gathering and having tea with the lizard people stuff. Long speeches about the Hero violating "the Creed" etcetera. What we see in evil trash like Unity.

AC1 is about Altair and Malick realizing that the "Brotherhood" aspect of the Assassins was a sham. A lie by their Mentor to bind them into willing puppets. Both Altair and Malick defy Al Mualim and fight the Brotherhood. Altair is the reformist of the Assassins, he said -- Poison is In, Finger-Cutting is out, We aren't going to be celibate anymore, oh chicks can be Assassins too, he also said that Assassins should find a job, a secret identity and live among people, take on front-organizations that was his vision. Later developers outright contradict this by making Assassins cult-like again like in Black Flag and Unity simply because that's what they think the Brotherhood experience is.

In AC2, Ezio recruited the Brotherhood specifically to fight the Borgia. Making them a dynamic shadow army and using that to bring the Renaissance to Rome.


It starts to go to hell once we get to AC3. It didn't work because Connor was never really an Assassin.

No True Scotsman much? By the way, no one after Altair and AC1 is an Assassin. Those guys exist in the actual historical period after all and function in the historical role. Everyone after that are only pseudo-Assassins. Ezio is really a Renaissance Patron of the Arts who uses his Assassin identity to kill opposing Italian families and build his business empire and influence across Rome and Istanbul. Edward Kenway is a Pirate and social climber who married wealth and used his Assassin identity for its access to secret and private fortunes and treasures which he parlays into the life of a Lord.


He was a lone wolf manipulated into it in order to save his tribe which he failed at anyway.

Altair was a Lone Eagle manipulated by his Mentor to his dirty work, then he was manipulated by the Apple. As was Ezio and everyone. The joke is that for all the talk of freedom, Assassins have been manipulated into serving the will of Juno over the centuries.

Juno liked Connor enough that she outright told him is all.

Assassin_M
07-05-2015, 11:26 PM
This is such a tired complaint, I don't even know why I'm posting here...

Shahkulu101
07-05-2015, 11:46 PM
AC1 analyzed the Creed, what it means to be an Assassin etc - the Brotherhood isn't extensively talked about in and of itself. Altair's reforms of the Brotherhood came after the events of AC1, even though we are shown during the game that he doesn't like the way they operated in Masyaf.

And no, most people say anything to defend the past games. Look, AC3 and Uniity are flawed games and I admit that - my favourite is actually ACB - so I've no mission to bestow them superiority over the Ezio games. It's just that, and don't take this the wrong way, that I think people genuinely do shut out criticism of the Ezio games by deluding themselves and not listening to criticism. Like when people say Edward isn't a true Assassin but Ezio is? How is that exactly? By the end of the game, both learn to embrace the Assassin ideology having spent most of the game with personal matters. You say the Brotherhood is a constant presence behind the scenes in AC2 but in AC4 the Brotherhood is far more than that, for one they have an actual hideout and we're aware of their existence the whole game. In the end after much conflict Edward resolves to embrace the Brotherhood that helped him understand what it means to be an Assassin. And what's more is that he comes to this realization himself, instead of by coincidence like Ezio or birthright like Altair. Plus you actually do more missions as an official Assassin than you do as Ezio. Ezio had one mission, Edward had a couple of sequences (although it only made up 5-6 missions in total I think). Yet despite the game was lambasted for not being "assassin-y" enough - I'm sorry but that just makes no sense and is demonstrably false. These are the arguments that fuel the "true Assassin" drivel: ones that don't deal with facts and that are completely superficial.

Corleone-Kun
07-06-2015, 02:00 AM
I Think the fact that we have a new protagonist every game now says much about this topic. I have nothing against the new games,I love black flag for instance,I just saying I miss the old times when was more about the protagonist and the brotherhood. Let's be real for a second,the only reason the protagonists are still assassins now is because the game is still called Assassin's Creed.

Assassin_M
07-06-2015, 02:44 AM
I Think the fact that we have a new protagonist every game now says much about this topic.
That was actually the original plan. Each game was gonna have a different protagonist. Ezio's the exception. This is not something new, it was always gonna be that way. I hope it stays that way. This is what the series is about, man, don't you see?? Why make it about ONE guy in ONE time period in ONE place? Why not a lot of others? The story of a Creed that spans thousands of years and hundreds of places. A story about how individuals relate to this Creed, about how this Creed managed to break in and blend with various cultures and various beliefs, how this Creed brings all these communities together under one banner. European, Mohawk, Middle Eastern, West Asian, East Asian. What's the allure of having one person, one perspective throughout ALLLLL the games? Better stories? No, Great stories can span one game. Edward is popular, Joel and Ellie are popular. There's no standard saying that more games means better stories or characters.


I miss the old times when was more about the protagonist and the brotherhood.
As has been said, the only game where this happened was Brotherhood. There's no old times.


Let's be real for a second,the only reason the protagonists are still assassins now is because the game is still called Assassin's Creed.
What about Ezio in AC II? He could have been Robin Hood or the Bat Maschio and no one would have noticed a difference. Just because, in the last 30 minutes of the game, all his friends turn out to be assassins and he mumbles the Creed in front of a fire, the game suddenly is about the brotherhood and assassins? makes no sense.

VestigialLlama4
07-06-2015, 05:45 AM
Let's be real for a second,the only reason the protagonists are still assassins now is because the game is still called Assassin's Creed.

You say that like its a bad thing. It isn't, Assassin's Creed has the audience that it does because it was a game about stuff that was a lot bigger than feeling-bad-about-killing-but-not-bad-enough-that-you'll-stop-killing. That's what the Brotherhood aspect boils down to.


The story of a Creed that spans thousands of years and hundreds of places. A story about how individuals relate to this Creed, about how this Creed managed to break in and blend with various cultures and various beliefs, how this Creed brings all these communities together under one banner. European, Mohawk, Middle Eastern, West Asian, East Asian.

Just wanted to say, I totally agree with this. That's what AC is really about. It's not about having the cult experience at all.


These are the arguments that fuel the "true Assassin" drivel: ones that don't deal with facts and that are completely superficial.

As far as I am concerned the only truly authentic AC game is AC1, because its set in a time where the historical Asasiyun actually existed and operated in a similar way to their counterparts.

The minute they go out of the Crusades, the Assassins become metaphors and symbols. You can't really take them literally. Everyone after that is no more legitimate than any precursor. The Mayan Assassins in Black Flag because they operate in a Masyafesque Tulum (which by the way Altair told everyone in the Codex to stop doing but nobody followed that memo) aren't more authentic than Ezio's Assassins in Italy, neither are they more authentic than the ones in China or anywhere else.

Kaschra
07-06-2015, 11:13 PM
And no, most people say anything to defend the past games. Look, AC3 and Uniity are flawed games and I admit that - my favourite is actually ACB - so I've no mission to bestow them superiority over the Ezio games. It's just that, and don't take this the wrong way, that I think people genuinely do shut out criticism of the Ezio games by deluding themselves and not listening to criticism. Like when people say Edward isn't a true Assassin but Ezio is? How is that exactly? By the end of the game, both learn to embrace the Assassin ideology having spent most of the game with personal matters. You say the Brotherhood is a constant presence behind the scenes in AC2 but in AC4 the Brotherhood is far more than that, for one they have an actual hideout and we're aware of their existence the whole game. In the end after much conflict Edward resolves to embrace the Brotherhood that helped him understand what it means to be an Assassin. And what's more is that he comes to this realization himself, instead of by coincidence like Ezio or birthright like Altair. Plus you actually do more missions as an official Assassin than you do as Ezio. Ezio had one mission, Edward had a couple of sequences (although it only made up 5-6 missions in total I think). Yet despite the game was lambasted for not being "assassin-y" enough - I'm sorry but that just makes no sense and is demonstrably false. These are the arguments that fuel the "true Assassin" drivel: ones that don't deal with facts and that are completely superficial.

http://i.imgur.com/MATWMk5.gif
Well said, man, well said!

Fatal-Feit
07-07-2015, 05:26 AM
Eh, I would argue the later games have done a better job of representing the Assassins and the Brotherhood, but why do that when others already have.

pianotugboat
07-18-2015, 07:38 PM
All characters are now are soulless husks of characters that say explicitly edgy lines and divert from the original creed, which isn't even addressed by anyone except for Bellec, AS he was purging the brotherhood, like he should of, I feel like killing off elis'e would of made more sense coming from bellecs hand not some stupid boss fight, let a game protagonist die, and let the main character dilude his thoughts to an order...

Alphacos007
07-19-2015, 04:35 AM
Actually, I found that Unity, despite all it's huge flaws, was one of the best in representing the brotherhood as an organization.

pianotugboat
07-19-2015, 04:45 AM
Actually, I found that Unity, despite all it's huge flaws, was one of the best in representing the brotherhood as an organization.

I agree, but the main character focusing on the creed not just acknowledge it and then betray it like a immature impulsive child

steveeire
07-19-2015, 05:10 AM
tbf I don't think Arno ever bought into the Creed, he was using the Assassin's to achieve his own goals, but obviously at some stage after Élise he started to take the Creed more srsly.

Shahkulu101
07-19-2015, 05:11 AM
I agree, but the main character focusing on the creed not just acknowledge it and then betray it like a immature impulsive child

Yeah why can't all characters just be perfect?

That would be sooo interesting...

Hans684
07-19-2015, 09:14 AM
tbf I don't think Arno ever bought into the Creed, he was using the Assassin's to achieve his own goals, but obviously at some stage after Élise he started to take the Creed more srsly.

Élise compared it to vine, good in small doses. She always took it seriously but with caution.

Dieinthedark
07-19-2015, 07:31 PM
What's ruined AC for me is the generic enemies/Templars. It's simply become a go to name for bad guys. Ubisoft makes a bad character and tries to piece together something that might vaguely fall in line with some sort of Templar beliefs and then call them a Templar. The reason AC1 and AC2 worked so well for the story IMO is because those times were ripe with religious turmoil, hence the Templars were either factual in existence (in the case of AC1) or made sense for the time period (in the case of AC2).

Our enemies are generic, our protagonists are less about the creed, and overall there's less mystery and intrigue and more action/adventure. To me there will always be games that do action/adventure better. AC1 and AC2 were special to me because of the mystery/intrigue but still blended with action/adventure, it just never struck me as the focus.

The way the brotherhood was portrayed, the very guarded language of Altair, the secrecy of the Assassin's (okay a castle isn't hidden but you know what I mean), the enemies that simply weren't generic "bad guys" named Templars...that's Assassin's Creed to me.